Dariusz Michalczewski, Lineal/Linear Champ...Not Quite!
Re: re
Jones is ofcourse recognised as the more talented fighter, but the fact is that he didn't fight DM, and this would have been an interesting fight and no foregone conclusion imo, so the fact that it didn't happen takes something away from Jones reign. He cannot claim to have been 100% the number one because he didn't fight DM. While Jones was all in all the better boxer, it still takes something away from him that he didn't really go for this fight. The fact that he was so talented means that we should expect more from him. The 175 divison was hardly overflowing with talent at this time and the Jones vs DM fight was really the biggest match there so really Jones should have gone for it...barry wrote:About DM and Jones, for several years I considered DM the true light heavyweight champion, but that just was not correct. No matter how you look at it, DM fell short of unifying the titles and there just is no way that anyone can honestly claim him to be the true lineal/linear champion at 175 and people can say that Jones was not, but the actual facts say otherwise!
I say this as someone who is not a particular fan of either man so I'm as close to being unbiased as I can get... 8)
Re: re
What about Tommy Loughran, Jack Delaney, Jimmy Slattery, Jack Dillon, Harry Greb, Battling Levinsky, George Carpenteir, Paul Berlanbach?... I'd rate all these guys above Jones at 175... many of them beat far more decent Haevyweights than Jones did too...barry wrote:No doubt Jones was a braggart of enourmous proportions, which did not endear him to a lot of fans. His style of fighting was unique though I would certainly prefer to watch someone like Trinidad, or even someone with the style of DM as oppopsed to Jones, but no matter how big of an asshole he was, it should never take away what he accomplished. Some will even argue that he was the greatest light heavyweight ever, though I won't go that far, but I do have him in the top ten:
1. Sam Langford
2. Bob Fitzsimmons
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Gene Tunney
5. Archie Moore
6. Bob Foster
7. Michael Spinks
8. Roy Jones
silkov your rating thoughts make some sense to me. Also If I rate a fighter in one weight class it's hard for me to rate him in another. I probably put Jones first and foremost and only in the LH division. Though he wandered around.
He would likely make my all time top twenty in the LH but not in the P4P dept.
He would likely make my all time top twenty in the LH but not in the P4P dept.
re
8. Roy Jones
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Tommy Burns
11. Tommy Gibbons
12. Maxie Rosenbloom
13. Harry Greb
14. Battling Levinsky
15. Billy Conn
16. Jack Dillon
17. Matthew Saad Muhammad
18. John Henry Lewis
19. Michael Moorer
20. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Many of the guys did beat good heavyweights, but I just don't see several of them beating Roy Jones, nor were they as successful, title-wise as Jones. Now the list is something that is entirely my opinion and nothing more.
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Tommy Burns
11. Tommy Gibbons
12. Maxie Rosenbloom
13. Harry Greb
14. Battling Levinsky
15. Billy Conn
16. Jack Dillon
17. Matthew Saad Muhammad
18. John Henry Lewis
19. Michael Moorer
20. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Many of the guys did beat good heavyweights, but I just don't see several of them beating Roy Jones, nor were they as successful, title-wise as Jones. Now the list is something that is entirely my opinion and nothing more.
re
I don't limit rating a fighter to only one weight class since there have been so many to fight at different weights and many that were top twenty in more than one division.
The only top twenty lists that I have right now is Heavyweight, Light heavyweight and Featherweight, I'm working on bantamweight and flyweight, but the rest, there are still a lot of fighters in the divisions that I need to learn more about before I try to make a list, though I would probably have Greb ranked first at middleweight.
I would have had Eddie Mustafa at 175.
The only top twenty lists that I have right now is Heavyweight, Light heavyweight and Featherweight, I'm working on bantamweight and flyweight, but the rest, there are still a lot of fighters in the divisions that I need to learn more about before I try to make a list, though I would probably have Greb ranked first at middleweight.
I would have had Eddie Mustafa at 175.
Re: re
But you have to admit that men like Conn, Delaney, Loughran, Greb and Dillon... to name just a few, fought far better opposition than Jones. Jones may have 'reigned' at 175 longer than some of the champs I named but his opposition was mediocre at best while earlier eras saw the 175 class full of talented fighters. Jones just didnot fight or beat anyone good enough at 175 to prove that he could handle the likes of Greb, Dillon and Conn, etc, in my opinion. While he may have been able to outbox some sluggers I think Dillon and Greb would have been too tough and relentless for him and I think boxers like Loughran, Delaney and Conn would have outboxed him. Berlanbach would have koed Jones, as would Moore and Foster.barry wrote:8. Roy Jones
9. Tommy Loughran
10. Tommy Burns
11. Tommy Gibbons
12. Maxie Rosenbloom
13. Harry Greb
14. Battling Levinsky
15. Billy Conn
16. Jack Dillon
17. Matthew Saad Muhammad
18. John Henry Lewis
19. Michael Moorer
20. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Many of the guys did beat good heavyweights, but I just don't see several of them beating Roy Jones, nor were they as successful, title-wise as Jones. Now the list is something that is entirely my opinion and nothing more.
Some people have said that Bob Fosters opposition was poor, but it was far superior to Jones.
-
Brett Paul Dunbar
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 22 Jan 2002, 20:00
Re: re
Dariusz Michalczewski beat Virgil Hill, Hill had in Novenber 1996 beat fellow long-reigning champion Henry Maske, unifying the WBA and IBF belts. Fabrice Tiozzo, the WBC champion, moved up to Cruiserweight leaving a situation where Hill was both a long reigning champion and the only holder of any of the three major belts. Essentially my view is at the end of October 1996 there were three men who would need to be involved in a ful unification re-establishing the lineage at light heavy, Hill, Tiozzo and Maske, by the end of November 1996, neither Maske nor Tiozzo were left, Maske had lost to Hill and Tiozzo had abandoned the divison, so Hill became champion partly by default.barry wrote:About DM and Jones, for several years I considered DM the true light heavyweight champion, but that just was not correct. No matter how you look at it, DM fell short of unifying the titles and there just is no way that anyone can honestly claim him to be the true lineal/linear champion at 175 and people can say that Jones was not, but the actual facts say otherwise!
I suppose one aspect I differ from you on is that I feel for a belt to be a requirement for the linear championship that particular iteration has to have been in existance for some time.
re
>>>I suppose one aspect I differ from you on is that I feel for a belt to be a requirement for the linear championship that particular iteration has to have been in existance for some time.<<<
I agree with that, though most will not as the IBF has been considered part of the mix. The two oldest are the WBC and WBA. Actually it's all bullshit nowadays. It's complete overkill of belts and it has diminsihed the meaning of both contender and champion.
I agree with that, though most will not as the IBF has been considered part of the mix. The two oldest are the WBC and WBA. Actually it's all bullshit nowadays. It's complete overkill of belts and it has diminsihed the meaning of both contender and champion.
-
Brett Paul Dunbar
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 22 Jan 2002, 20:00
Re: re
You misunderstood me. What i meant by iteration was the specific lineage since that title was last vacant, not how long the title itself had been in existance. E.g. at Cruiserwight the current iteration of the WBA title dates back to November 1993 (Orlin Norris TKO 6 Marcelo Figuroa) the WBO to June 1995 (Ralph Rocchigiani TKO 11 Carl Thompson) the WBC to October 2002 (Wayne Braithwaite TKO 10 Vincenzo Cantatore) and the IBF only to May 2005 (O'Neil Bell UD 12 Sale Brown). So at Cuiserwieght currently the two senior titles are the WBA and the WBO. The WBC title is held by the WBA champion and the IBF was very recently vacant, so lacks credibility.barry wrote:>>>I suppose one aspect I differ from you on is that I feel for a belt to be a requirement for the linear championship that particular iteration has to have been in existance for some time.<<<
I agree with that, though most will not as the IBF has been considered part of the mix. The two oldest are the WBC and WBA. Actually it's all bullshit nowadays. It's complete overkill of belts and it has diminsihed the meaning of both contender and champion.
One of the things that sickens me more than anything is this 'super champions' thing that has started and the whole 'interm champs' that we get now. Not only do we have about 5 or 6 'world championship belts' but many of these belts now have more than one champion too!... pure greed and madness and we wonder why boxing has become just a minor figure in sport generally today.BoxBuzz wrote:silkov though much of what you say is true and no one hates the current belts more than me I still look to the "prize" as having meaning and hoping someday that we can return to that.
Re: re
firstly barry YOU mentioned holmes was the man when he beat ali.i just asked the question on johnson.you may THINK you know more but from what i read that is not the case.you may delve into parts of the history others can't be bothered to and try to sound all wise,but your blatant bias shows through on subjects.i would think a HISTORIAN would be able to be more subjective on topics.i still remember the ketchel-o'brien comments you made that were not accurate at all.someone as knowledgable as you claim to be would not make such obvious mistakes.barry wrote:Jack Johnson has absolutely nothing to do with Darius Michacweski and it's an even bigger insult putting Johnson's name with DM than the Holmes statement was!
Speaking of trash belts...the WBO sucks hind teet in the belt category. It's goes a little something like this,
WBA, WBC (Both 1960s) and then the IBF (1984) and then the WBO (1988)...though they all suck now, but at least Jones fought top ten contenders recognized by not only the big three orgs, but also top ten contenders that every ranking system in the world named...he defended against the best light weights around while DM doodled around fighting his usual chump-change that the "prestigous" WBO allowed him to fight, fighters that wasn't even in the top twenty of rankings bodies like Ring mag, or BI...there is no denying that.
Obxoxious, sure, because I know that I am right and that really pisses off a lot of people, but they'll just have to get over it! When I'm wrong I don't care to admit it, but I'm not going to apologize because I know more than most...call it cocky, obnoxious, or whatever...the facts is, most of the time I am right!
re
And for the record, I have never called myslef a historian, that's you...but as I said before, I know a lot more than most and the only thing some of you cats can do is try to change topic, like with your little Johnson statement, which by the way isn't worth wasting my time...
>>>i still remember the ketchel-o'brien comments you made that were not accurate at all<<<
Enlighten us all about what exactly it was that I was so wrong about!
>>>i still remember the ketchel-o'brien comments you made that were not accurate at all<<<
Enlighten us all about what exactly it was that I was so wrong about!
barry i don't make that many posts m8.you can see where and when i post.i've only just come across your remark.i never mentioned larry you did.mine was a simple question about johnson which i don't know the answer to.if he had not beaten jeff would he be lineal champ?regardless of that you said the ketchel-o'brien fight went all one way with stanley unable to land and in desperation he swung(i think you said with his eyes closed-but may have been tongue in cheek)and landed just before the bell.if you've ever read a fight report of this contest you would know that what you wrote was totally ficticious.
i don't claim to be a historian,i just enjoy looking at the past,but i don't go bragging that i'm the bees knees like you do.i know a lot of guys that really know their stuff and one thing they all are is modest.someone that goes around shouting the odds like you do is worthy of no respect.it doesn't surprise me you don't go admitting you're wrong,as you are arrogant,petty and self agenda filled.
i don't claim to be a historian,i just enjoy looking at the past,but i don't go bragging that i'm the bees knees like you do.i know a lot of guys that really know their stuff and one thing they all are is modest.someone that goes around shouting the odds like you do is worthy of no respect.it doesn't surprise me you don't go admitting you're wrong,as you are arrogant,petty and self agenda filled.
re
Like I told someone else, I'm not aiming to win a popularity contest, I speak my mind just a everyone else does and being that I am right most of the time people like you can't handle it so you make false claims and then childish remarks that have absolutely no merit about them...such a hypocrite.
I gladly admit when I am wrong, problem is it doesn't happen a lot, but when it does I don't try to pretend like I do know what I'm talking about, like someone like you would do, I admit it and then I learn about it instead of whining to and criticizing the person that gave me the right answer and again, I will not apologize because I know what I am talking about.
The easiest thing in the world to do is criticize someone else, that's what insecure people do, attack someone else's character...I could tear your character apart if I wanted, but I've got betters things to do and besides, I am not as insecure about things as you seem to be. No I would rather spend my time reading another biography, or going through another old magazine. Don't whine about me because I am better prepared than you are, you can easily change that by putting the time in, like I have, but jealousy will eat you alive and criticizing just makes you seem very small! Trust me, just let it go.
As to my arrogance, or my rudeness, I treat people the same way they treat me, it's not my fault that most can give, but they sure as hell cannot take!
I gladly admit when I am wrong, problem is it doesn't happen a lot, but when it does I don't try to pretend like I do know what I'm talking about, like someone like you would do, I admit it and then I learn about it instead of whining to and criticizing the person that gave me the right answer and again, I will not apologize because I know what I am talking about.
The easiest thing in the world to do is criticize someone else, that's what insecure people do, attack someone else's character...I could tear your character apart if I wanted, but I've got betters things to do and besides, I am not as insecure about things as you seem to be. No I would rather spend my time reading another biography, or going through another old magazine. Don't whine about me because I am better prepared than you are, you can easily change that by putting the time in, like I have, but jealousy will eat you alive and criticizing just makes you seem very small! Trust me, just let it go.
As to my arrogance, or my rudeness, I treat people the same way they treat me, it's not my fault that most can give, but they sure as hell cannot take!
8)